Is God held to a different moral standard?

[Angel]

The Bible mentions several acts of God that if a human did would be considered wrong. Some examples would be when the Bible mentions God killing babies and ordering others to do so. I wonder if God is obligated to follow the same morals as us. One common response I get from some Christians is that God is God so he can do what he wants. If we try to do some of the objectionable things on our own that he's done then we're guilty of playing God. For example, if a human kills an innocent baby, the human would be guilty of murder, but if God does it, some Christians defend it as being right since it's God. Christians with that position see no wrong in it just as long as the child goes to a better afterlife but they don't factor in the means of the baby's death which is by 'murder' as far as I could tell. Why the double standard?


Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

[EduChris]

...You are arguing that we would be unable to learn the consequences of our "evil actions" if Yahweh did not order people to commit genocide? Can you explain how that follows?...

God gives us a world for interaction and growth and development and moral choice. Humans misuse our freedom; we habitually choose evil. God steps into the mess as sparingly as possible, at critical junctions where decisive action is necessary in order to ensure that over the long haul, humankind can be brought to increasingly greater levels of moral development. In other words, I don't think God's continual planetary-scale micromanaging is consistent with genuine human freedom. Decisive action may be required in extreme circumstances, but as the Bible itself demonstrates, such actions will be infrequent and limited mostly to a the dealings of one particular chosen people, from whom eventually blessings will go out to all people. God has every right to act as he does, and we "messy humans" are in no position to second-guess God.

I've already spent more time on this thread than I care to, given that the Problem of Evil is not as interesting to me as it is to some folks. I'm sure that whatever I or anyone else might say, you will remain unconvinced. So be it. Until someone comes up with a better plan, I choose to follow the example and teaching of Jesus.

[AquinasD]

Do you mean this in principle? Could it ever be the case that some world shouldn't be actualized due to pain?

I'm not sure. Perhaps worlds with beings where suffering is not ultimately redeemed, i.e. the creatures never turn back to God. But otherwise, if suffering is redeemed, then it ought to be allowed to be redeemed.

Also, could it be rational for a person to suppose that our world is such a one?

The problem of evil? It is existentially significant, I suppose, but I believe it rests on a conceptual confusion.

[kayky]

There seems to be a presumption on this thread that the Bible provides an accurate description of God. You only have to compare the New Testament to the Old Testament to realize that human concepts of God have evolved over time. I'm sure if you studied later Jewish writings you would discover the same phenomenon.

The God of the Old Testament was a tribal god. Killing the enemies of his chosen tribe would have seen as a good thing.

[nejisan]

I don't think that the christian God is held to the same moral standard as his followers. It seems that this is addressed in the book of Job to me, particularly at the end. BibleGod "permits" Satan to antagonize this man. This narrative left me with the feeling that BibleGods relationship to man was more like mans relationship to livestock.

Is this right? It doesn't feel right. It would seem that any deity would only teach those things it embodied and demonstrated regularly. This doesn't seem to be the case in the old testament. My impression is that Old Testament "God" is wrathful, jealous, violent, and at times rather brutal. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems to be the creed here, unless, of course, HE tells you to do it.

If God is not held to same moral standard as his followers, doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as an "Objective Moral"? This can only exist if it applies to all by definition, right? or am I missing something?

[Adamoriens]

I'm not sure. Perhaps worlds with beings where suffering is not ultimately redeemed, i.e. the creatures never turn back to God. But otherwise, if suffering is redeemed, then it ought to be allowed to be redeemed.

By redeemed suffering do you mean suffering that is eventually compensated? If a creature's conscious span (including the afterlife) is good on balance, it ought to be allowed to exist, even if it should entail that there be creatures whose spans are inculpably bad, all things considered? Or is that an impossible case, due to there being ultimate justice?

Also, could it be rational for a person to suppose that our world is such a one?

The problem of evil? It is existentially significant, I suppose, but I believe it rests on a conceptual confusion.

One could challenge the high value you place on the redemption of the suffering of a few, expanding the envelope of worlds which shouldn't have been created. It seems to me that if creatures could've had better mortal existences overall and received the beatific vision, God should've realized that state of affairs. But I realize that this runs afoul of your principle of absolute contingency. Nevertheless, I wonder if viewing persons as complex collections of contingencies and maintaining that they are distinctively persons is conceptually confused itself. My understanding of a commonsense notion of persons includes the idea that some part of a human preserves (or at least changes much slower) in spite of the contingencies of life, and that this core is the person or soul.

If persons are absolutely contingent, then you seem to hold to a notion that is quite similar to a hard-naturalistic view of minds.

[Goat]

There seems to be a presumption on this thread that the Bible provides an accurate description of God. You only have to compare the New Testament to the Old Testament to realize that human concepts of God have evolved over time. I'm sure if you studied later Jewish writings you would discover the same phenomenon.

The God of the Old Testament was a tribal god. Killing the enemies of his chosen tribe would have seen as a good thing.

Welcome back.

The change in the actions was much in evidence even before Christianity. By the time the Second temple was built, a lot of the passages about killing and stoning were taken as 'this is important , so we are exaggerating it to make an emphasis' rather than take it literally

[AquinasD]

By redeemed suffering do you mean suffering that is eventually compensated? If a creature's conscious span (including the afterlife) is good on balance, it ought to be allowed to exist, even if it should entail that there be creatures whose spans are inculpably bad, all things considered? Or is that an impossible case, due to there being ultimate justice?

Yes, I would say ultimate justice prevents it being the case that there are creatures who suffer for eternity due to something like moral luck. Any individual creature's whose suffering is unredeemed can only be by the choice of that individual.

One could challenge the high value you place on the redemption of the suffering of a few, expanding the envelope of worlds which shouldn't have been created.

Ought people who will enjoy the beatific vision give up their existence because there are others who refuse to enjoy it? Should people give up nice things because some insist on being miserable?

It seems to me that if creatures could've had better mortal existences overall and received the beatific vision, God should've realized that state of affairs. But I realize that this runs afoul of your principle of absolute contingency. Nevertheless, I wonder if viewing persons as complex collections of contingencies and maintaining that they are distinctively persons is conceptually confused itself. My understanding of a commonsense notion of persons includes the idea that some part of a human preserves (or at least changes much slower) in spite of the contingencies of life, and that this core is the person or soul.

The principle of absolute contingency is stated from the perspective of atemporal existence. A person can only be who they are as exemplified over their lifetime. There is indeed a "core" which persists, but speaking about a person as if they could be a person in any other world than their own just doesn't make sense. God cannot actualize the existence of an individual except that individual's own.

The kind of existence we possess (in terms of significant choices) are our own choice.

[Angel]

...One source for the Sodom and Gomorrah sites here...

Natural disasters happen in our universe; I see nothing wrong with God harnessing these natural disasters to serve to some sovereign purpose.

The wrong would come in if God does so going against his own standards, especially if innocent children were killed. You refuse to factor in that there's a difference in someone's life ending naturally as opposed to God actually inflicting a punishment on them to make them die, whether it be drowning, or whatever means.

...Some examples of the Israelites not killing all they were ordered to kill is, Numbers 31:7-18

The killing of the women is explained as retribution for the wrongdoing they had done by attempting to subvert God's purpose for the Israelites. The only "unexplained" matter has to do with the killing of the boys. This command will seem harsh to us in our culture, but likely not to previous cultures. Sparing the boys would have either resulted in their enslavement (a bad thing) or in the dilution of the inheritance rights of the Israelite boys.

The killing of boys, if they were innocent, not only would offend modern-day Western culture, but it would also violate that cultures own standards, if they were being led by the Law given to Moses. Owning slaves was also not wrong during that time either.

I know you brought up total obliteration rhetoric as just being hyperbole of those times. The Israelites still went to war nonetheless and killed so are you open to considering that the ones who were killed were the babies while the ones who got away or were left alive were select choice of children, men, and women who were left alive? Would not these babies cause the same burden that you mentioned regarding sparing boys and how that would conflict with inheritance rights?

...God...is under a moral obligation to not kill them via 'murder'...

I don't see how the term "murder" can be applied to God. After all, we don't say that the owner of a car can be charged with the left of the car she owns. At any rate, you are blaming God that we live in the sort of world where bad things happen.

The term 'murder' would apply to a God when He kills based on an unjustified reason. That's what you condone when you try to defend a scenario involving God killing babies. You can't have it both ways. If the Babies are not innocent then God is right but if the babies are innocent then God is wrong. And I"m not talking about babies dying a natural death, I'm referring to one where God actually caused the 'lethal' harm like presumably like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't even say that bad things happen to "innocent people" because I don't think there is any such thing as an "innocent person." True, babies haven't yet had the opportunity to sin, but give them time and they will.

This used to be an old argument of mine until I realize that it conflicts with free-will which would lead right back to a bad for God. Perhaps that goes with that NT passage that mentions some just being created as objects of wrath (Romans 9:22).

To me, the problem is not so much that our world is not yet ideal; the problem is more that we don't even know what an ideal world would look like. We are mired in ambiguity (and yes, the Bible contains ambiguities) and yet we think we can judge the God who gives us the law of love. The clearest example we have of the life we're supposed to live is found in Jesus. We can try to follow his example, but even this is difficult. I can't even buy a new computer in this world without contributing to the global mechanisms that virtually ensure that some people will be exploited and some resources will be depleted or spoiled. But I do the best I can, and I follow the example and teaching of Jesus as best I can. If I had some better standard to live by, that would be one thing. But no such better standard exists on this side of paradise.

I have no way of verifying anything you've said here.

[EduChris]

...Could it ever be the case that some world shouldn't be actualized due to pain?...

Yes, the (non-theistic) omniverse hypothesis would inevitably result in countless worlds with unjustified suffering.

...could it be rational for a person to suppose that our world is such a one?

If non-theism were true, then it might be rational to suppose that our world contained, on balance, more evil than good. However, the omniverse hypothesis is self-refuting, and so we cannot be justified in assuming it.

Given theism (involving conscious, rational volition) it would be irrational to suppose that our world exhibits unjustified suffering.

[micatala]

The Bible mentions several acts of God that if a human did would be considered wrong. Some examples would be when the Bible mentions God killing babies and ordering others to do so. I wonder if God is obligated to follow the same morals as us. One common response I get from some Christians is that God is God so he can do what he wants. If we try to do some of the objectionable things on our own that he's done then we're guilty of playing God. For example, if a human kills an innocent baby, the human would be guilty of murder, but if God does it, some Christians defend it as being right since it's God. Christians with that position see no wrong in it just as long as the child goes to a better afterlife but they don't factor in the means of the baby's death which is by 'murder' as far as I could tell. Why the double standard?


Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

I in general do not see that God must follow the same rules as mortals. Which rules He must follows depends on your definition of God, and their could be variances even within Christianity.


However, whatever one's definition of God, it typically includes God not being human, not having a physical nature, being eternal, being omniscient and omnipotent or at least orders of magnitude more knowledgeable and powerful than we are, etc., etc.

Under these assumptions, I am not sure why God would or should follow usual standards of human morality.


To make an analogy, government or judicial officials or police officers, at least in the performance of their duties, often do not need to follow the same rules as everyone else. Police officers can carry guns anywhere, can detain individuals, can perform violent acts including killing, all legally and presumably morally justified. Governments, through eminent domain and other means, can acquire property that is not theirs.

Would you consider any of those examples of unfairness?